Every new life begins at conception. This is an irrefutable fact of biology. It is true for animals and true for humans. When considered alongside the law of biogenesis – that every species reproduces after its own kind – we can draw only one conclusion in regard to abortion: every single abortion ends the life of an innocent human being.

Personhood is properly defined by membership in the human species, not by stage of development within that species. A living being’s designation to a species is determined not by the stage of development but by the sum total of its biological characteristics.

No matter how you spin it, women don’t have four arms and four legs when they’re pregnant. Those extra appendages belong to the tiny human being(s) living inside of them. At no point in pregnancy is the developing embryo or fetus simply a part of the mother’s body.

Any civilized society restricts the individual’s freedom to choose whenever that choice would harm an innocent person. Therefore, it is impossible to justify abortion by simply arguing that women should be “free to choose.”

There are all sorts of circumstances that people point to as justification for their support of abortion. Since none of these circumstances are sufficient to justify the killing of human beings after birth, they’re not sufficient to justify the killing of human beings before birth.

Like toddler and adolescent, the terms “embryo” and “fetus” do not refer to nonhumans but to humans at particular stages of development. Human beings inside the womb are smaller, less developed, and more dependent than human beings outside the womb. These are differences of degree, not differences of kind. We can all point to other people who are bigger, stronger, smarter, or less dependent than we are, but that doesn’t make our life any less valuable or any less deserving of protection.

It is an extremely rare case when abortion is required to save the mother’s life. Of course, when two lives are threatened and only one can be saved, doctors must always save that life. However, abortion for the mother’s life and abortion for the mother’s health are usually not the same issue. Since every abortion kills an innocent human being, it is morally abhorrent to use the rare cases when abortion is necessary to save the life of the mother as justification for the millions of on demand “convenience” abortions.

If abortion doesn’t kill children, why would someone be opposed to it? If it does kill children, why would someone defend another’s right to do it? Being personally against abortion but favoring another’s right to abortion is self-contradictory and morally baffling.

It is a scientific fact that life begins at conception. However, if one personally has even a shred of uncertainty about when life begins, then they are still morally obligated to err on the side of life and NOT have an abortion. Why? Because to make a mistake about the exact time when life begins is to kill an innocent human being.

Not only does every abortion kill an innocent human being in the womb; but abortion is also more dangerous to the mother than if she were to give birth to the child. The evidence overwhelmingly proves that the morbidity and mortality rates of legal abortion are several times higher than that for carrying a pregnancy to term.

Some justify abortion on the claim that if it is outlawed, women will abort anyway and may die in the process. There are 3 problems with this hypothesis. First, it doesn’t address the ethics of abortion. Second, laws against abortion would deter most women from having one. Third, there is no evidence that illegal abortions are more dangerous than legal abortions. Of course, even if the “coat hanger” argument was true (it’s not), then it’s still morally ridiculous to legalize procedures that kill innocent babies just to make the killing procedures less dangerous to the mother.

Networks of killing centers across the globe are eliminating “unwanted, unborn” children at a staggering rate. Were the context not abortion, the world would be outraged. Call it what you want, when an innocent group of human beings is targeted and exterminated by the millions, that is an injustice on par with any of history’s most egregious atrocities. At the end of the day, if the unborn are people (and they are), then abortion is not only comparable to past crimes against humanity but is also, by sheer volume, the greatest holocaust of all.

Abortion affects both men and women. Beyond that, abortion is a human issue, not a gender issue. If abortion kills innocent human life (it does), then everyone, male and female, should stand against it. One doesn’t need to be a young girl to take a position against the sex trafficking of young girls, and one doesn’t need to be a woman to take a position against abortion.